Kisses
and touches performed for sensual and lustful motives are condemned as mortal
sins by the Catholic Church and Her Saints for both married and
unmarried people alike

Pope
Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters
#40, September 24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a
probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when
performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which
arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution
is excluded.” – Condemned statement by Pope Alexander VII. (Denz. 1140)

Jean
Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “Several doctors [of
Divinity] maintain that willingly fostering wicked carnal thoughts in
order to enjoy oneself is a deadly sin, even without doing the deed.
Be sure, however, that kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused
by such wicked and lustful thoughts, without anything more, is an
even greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do
not respect the honesty which is usually kept in public.

“… Is
it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses who
maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do
them openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [and lustfully]
that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable deadly sin. If kisses
are made between strangers and publicly, as a sign of peace, by
friendship or kinship, without wicked thought, there is no sin. They
could be dangerous between clerics, or people of the same sex or
lineage, or in a secret place, and in a prolonged way.

The
Church’s moral teaching that condemns kisses “performed
for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight” might come as
a surprise to many married couples who thought that this was lawful
to do within a marriage. Now some people will indeed be quick to
suggest that this statement only applies to unmarried people. However
the truth of the matter is that there is not a single indication in
the decree that even remotely suggests this. This
objection is also easily refuted by considering the wording and
reason behind the decree, which of course applies both to the married
and unmarried people. Note that “pollution” is an
older term used to describe “ejaculation” or “discharge
of semen” other than during lawful sex.

Therefore,
according to the above Church condemnation, even if spouses or
unmarried people do not consent to do anything more than the act of
kissing itself and don’t commit any other sexual sin or act, it
would still be considered as a mortal sin for
them to be kissing “for the sake of the carnal and sensible
delight” even if “danger of further consent and
pollution [or ejaculation] is excluded.” This, of course,
is true both before, during, and after the marital act, and
applies both to married and unmarried people alike. Thus,
spouses may never kiss each other in a sensual way or in this
way provoke themselves into sexual lust or “pollution,”
either as an act that is separated completely from the marital act or
as an act that is committed in relationship to the marital act (such
as foreplay), even if pollution or ejaculation is excluded.

Again,
the condemned proposition specifically mentioned that kisses “for
the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the
kiss” is mortally sinful even though “danger of further
consent and pollution [or ejaculation] is excluded” so that no
one, whether married or unmarried, should get the idea that they
would be allowed to kiss another person for sensual pleasure as long
as they did not proceed any further than that.

This
point is important to mention since many lustful couples use all
kinds of unnecessary acts before, during and after sexual relations.
They try to excuse these shameful acts by claiming that they cannot
complete the sexual act without them. However, their sinful excuse is
condemned by this decree alone.

Now,
the main reason for why the act of kissing for the sake of venereal
pleasure is mortally sinful according to the teachings of the
Catholic Church, the Saints and the Doctors of the Church is because
it’s lust and serves no reasonable purpose other than
wickedly arousing the selfish sexual desire of the spouses while not
being able to effect the conception of a child. This fact then shows
us that sensual kissing is a completely selfish and unnecessary act
with no other purpose than to inflame a person’s shameful lust,
which is contrary to virtue and the good of marriage. Again, unless
husband or wife are totally degenerated, the mere thought of having
sex with their spouse should be enough to inflame their lust and make
them ready—at least on the part of the husband. And if this is
true with mere thoughts, how much more with kisses and touches?

There
can be no doubt about the fact that many men who are ignorant about
sex and women would be in danger of “pollution” by the
mere thought of, or act of, sensual kissing or touching. It happens
even today amongst some men, mostly in young men who are unlearned in
the ways of lust—if one can call it that. That’s why the
condemned proposition that tried to excuse this mortal sin
even mentioned if “pollution is excluded,” as if wanting
to argue that only ejaculation or climax (or pollution) was the
mortal sin and not also the evil intention of seeking the pleasure.
However, as we all could see above, whether pollution actually
happens or not, sensual kisses was still condemned as a mortal sin
according to God’s Holy Law.

The
fact that many men today have no danger of pollution from sensual
kisses or touches does not make it lawful or right either. Because it
is obvious that the act is not made lawful just because some men have
hardened their hearts and become perverted. Simply said, all kisses
and touches performed for the sake of sensual or fleshly pleasure is
condemned as a mortal sin by the Catholic Church.

There
are three main reasons for why all kisses and touches “when
performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which
arises from the kiss” is mortally sinful and a sin against the
Natural Law. The
first reason
is that they are a kind of drug
abuse
since they are selfish,
intoxicating and unnecessary just like drug abuse is;the
second
is that they are shameful
since the people who commit these unnecessary acts are ashamed to do
them in front of other people; and
the third
is that they are non-procreative
even though God’s law teaches that the “the
conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of
children”
(Pope Pius XI, Casti
Connubii
#54).
These three reasons are also why the Church teaches that even
the
normal, natural and procreative
“act
of marriage exercised for pleasure
only”
is condemned as a sin for both the married and unmarried people alike
(Blessed Pope Innocent XI)
and why
this truth was taught already in the Old Testament by God long before
even the New Testament was revealed to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The
Holy Bible, Tobias 6:16-17, 22; 8:9 “Then the angel Raphael
said to him [Tobias]: Hear me, and I will shew thee who
they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such
manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and
from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse
and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath
power. … And when
the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of
the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for
lust, that in the seed of
Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias
said] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly
lust do I take my sister to wife,
but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed
for ever and ever.”

One
of the three greatest reasons for why all non-procreative
and unnecessary forms of sexual acts are
mortally sinful is that all sexual acts (even marital, natural,
lawful and procreative ones) are intoxicating
and affects the person similar to the effect of a drug. In fact, the
sexual pleasure is many times more intoxicating than many drugs that
are unlawful to abuse. But when people are performing unnatural and
non-procreative forms of sexual acts, they are abusing the marital
act in a similar way that a drug user abuses drugs, or a glutton
abuses food. It is an inherently selfish act that are not founded on
reason, but only on their unlawful and shameful search for carnal
pleasure, similar to the action of a person that uses drugs in order
to get intoxicated or high. This absolutely proves that all
unnecessary and non-procreative forms of sexual acts, such as sensual
kisses and touches, are sinful and unreasonable to abuse in the same
way that drugs are sinful and unreasonable to abuse.

This
is also why the Church teaches that even
the normal, natural and procreative
“act
of marriage exercised for pleasure
only”
is condemned as a sin for both the married and unmarried people alike
(Pope Innocent XI, Various
Errors on Moral Matters Condemned in Decree
(# 8), March 4, 1679).
Since the Church and the Natural Law condemns even the normal,
natural and procreative
“act
of marriage exercised for pleasure
only”,
even though this act is procreative
in itself, it
is obvious that all non-procreative
and unnecessary forms of sexual acts (such as sensual kisses and
touches) are condemned as even worse sins
(that is, as mortal sins); since they are utterlyunnatural,
unreasonable,
shameful,
and selfish.
This obvious fact is also why it is patently absurd and illogical for
anyone who agree with the Church’s condemnation of the normal,
natural and procreative
“act
of marriage exercised for pleasure
only”
even though this act is directly procreative
in itself, to then turn around and say that the Church and the Saints
allows spouses to perform unnatural or non-procreative
sexual acts, such as sensual kisses and touches! In truth, it is a
marvel how anyone who accept such a contradictory, illogical and
absurd position as described above is even able to justify such a
stupid position in his own conscience, but free will being what it
is, we can only pray that those who have fallen into this false and
unreasonable position see their error, and become converted.

A
sick person is allowed by God’s permission to take drugs in
order to lessen his pain. But when this sick person uses more drugs
than he needs in order to get intoxicated, or continues to use the
drugs after he gets well, he commits the sin of drug abuse. This is a
perfect example of those who perform non-procreative or unnecessary
forms of sexual acts (such as sensual kisses and touches) either by
themselves or in relationship to the marital act. They are gluttonous
or overindulgent in the marital act, and are thus sinning against
their reason and the Natural Law. For
“the
sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance
with right reason...”
and “lust
there signifies any kind of excess.”
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica,
Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1)

The
“excess” that St. Thomas and the Church condemns as a sin
are all sexual acts except for what is inherent in the normal,
natural and procreative marital act itself. All other sexual acts are
by their own nature inexcusable and a sin against the Natural Law,
which means that even though a person has never been told or taught
that they are sins, they are still committing a mortal sin, just like
a person do not have to be told or taught that murder, abortion,
stealing, or getting intoxicated or drunk is a sin against the
Natural Law in order for this person to be able to commit a mortal
sin. As
the Haydock Bible and Commentary correctly explains about The Natural
Law and Romans 2:14-16: “these
men are a law
to themselves,
and have it written
in their hearts,
as to the existence of a God, and
their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful...”

In
truth, “We
may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates to certain
acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth.”
(Summa
Theologica,
II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1) Notice that St. Thomas even rejects as
lascivious and unlawful “acts
circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth”,
and so it is clear that St. Thomas taught that all non-procreative
and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful and against nature. This is
also why the Natural Law and the Church teaches that even sensual
kisses performed“for
the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the
kiss”
is condemned as a mortal sin for both the married and the unmarried
people alike (Pope
Alexander VII).

St.
Augustine also confirms the fact that it is utterly shameful to even
think that one could use “kisses and embraces” for
venereal pleasure: “... and you [the Pelagian heretic Julian]
do not blush
to say you think: ‘It is the more to be commended because the
other parts of the body serve it [the reproductive member], that it
may be more ardently aroused; be it the eyes for lusting, or the
other members, in kisses and embraces.’” (St. Augustine,
Against
Julian,
Book V, Chapter 5, Section 23) Indeed, the people of the modern world
shamelessly
do not blush
to proclaim that kisses and touches for venereal pleasure is lawful
and even good, just like the heretics of the early Church did! Since
many of the heretics of our own times, like Julian, are Pelagians in
their doctrine and rejects the Church’s teaching concerning
Original
Sin,
they also fail to see the inherent evilness of unnatural or
non-procreative sexual acts, (such as sensual kisses and touches)
since they have chosen to call concupiscence or sexual desire “good”
or a “gift from God” rather than a defect that arose from
the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. In addition to all of this
evidence, this quotation also shows us that even the married are
forbidden to perform unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts such as
sensual kisses and touches. The Pelagian heretic Julian that St.
Augustine is citing in this quotation, did not teach that sexual acts
(such as sensual kisses and touches) could be performed by unmarried
people, but that only the married were allowed to perform them, which
shows us that it is shameful to even dare to suggest that the married
can perform such acts. This fact, then, directly refutes those who
claim that the Church and Her Saints only condemns kisses and touches
for venereal pleasure for those who are unmarried.

This
is also why St. Augustine teaches that all
non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts (such as sensual kisses
and touches) are sinful even for the married.

St.
Augustine, On
The Good of Marriage:
“For necessary
sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame,
and itself is alone
worthy of marriage. But
that which goes beyond this necessity
[of begetting children, such as sensual kisses and touches] no longer
follows reason but lust.”
(Section 11, A.D. 401)

Thus,
St. Augustine taught that the only lawful sexual act was the
intercourse itself. This obviously excludes
all other sexual acts that are not part of the normal and natural
intercourse “for the begetting of children”. Notice that
St. Augustine is also speaking about married people in this
quotation, since he says that “necessary
sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame,
and itself is alone
worthy of
marriage”,
thus showing us that he is speaking about the married in this
quotation, and not only the unmarried. The
fact that he is speaking about the married, of course, totally
refutes all who say that only the unmarried but not the married are
forbidden by the Saints and the Church to perform unnatural,
non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts—such as sensual
kisses and touches. Thus, “as
regards any
part of the body
[such as the mouth] which is not meant for generative [procreative]
purposes, should
a man use even his own wife in it [for sensual pleasure], it is against nature and
flagitious
[that is, atrociously wicked; vicious; outrageous].” (St.
Augustine, On
Marriage and Concupiscence,
Book 2, Chapter 35).
Again, for those who would claim that only some non-procreative or
unnecessary sexual acts, such
as masturbation of self or of spouse, oral and anal sex, or foreplay,
are condemned by the Church and Her Saints, but not sensual touches
or kisses, St. Augustine answers that “as
regards any
part of the body
[such as the mouth] which is not meant for generative [procreative]
purposes, should
a man use even his own wife in it, it is against nature and
flagitious”
in order to show us that no sexual act without exception that is
non-procreative could ever be performed by married spouses without
sin, and that all
unnecessary
sexual acts are “against nature” and condemned and
utterly detested by God: “For necessary
sexual intercourse for begetting [of children] is free from blame,
and itself is alone
worthy of marriage. But
that which goes beyond this necessity
[of begetting children, such as sensual kisses and touches] no longer
follows reason but lust.”
(On
The Good of Marriage,
Section 11)

Indeed,
we know that St. Augustine even teaches that spouses who perform the
normal, natural and procreative sexual act itself but without
excusing it with the explicit motive of procreation, are
committing a sin; and since this is so even though this act
is procreative in itself, how much more must not those acts that are
non-procreative be condemned by him?

St.
Augustine, On
Marriage and Concupiscence,
Book 1, Chapter 17, A.D. 419: “It is, however, one thing for
married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget
children, which is not sinful: it
is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation,
but with the spouse only, which
involves venial sin.For
although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the
intercourse,
there
is still no attempt to prevent such propagation,
either by wrong desire or evil appliance.”

Therefore,
it is patently absurd and illogical to claim that St. Augustine
teaches that the normal,
natural and procreative sexual act itself, but without excusing it
with the explicit motive of procreation, is sinful to perform for the
married; but then turn around and claim that he allows spouses to
perform non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts, such as sensual
kisses and touches.

The
fact of the matter is that every shred of evidence from the Great
Saint Augustine’s writings utterly destroys the heresy against
the Natural Law which teaches that sensual kisses and touches are
allowed or lawful for the married: “But
those who, giving the rein to lust, either wander about steeping
themselves in a multitude of debaucheries, or
even in regard to one wife not only exceed the measure necessary for
the procreation of children, but with the shameless license of a sort
of slavish freedom heap up the filth of a still more beastly
excess...”
(St. Augustine, On
Christian Doctrine,
Book III, Chapter 19:28) St. Augustine makes it perfectly clear
that all sexual acts that “exceed
the measure necessary for the procreation of children” are acts
of “beastly excess”. Are
sensual kisses and touches “necessary
for the procreation of children”. Of course not! Only the most
dishonest person would ever dare to claim such a thing.
Thus,
it is a fact that St.
Augustine, Doctor of the Church, condemns those who “even
in regard to one wife not only exceed the measure necessary for the
procreation of children, but
with the shameless license of a sort of slavish freedom heap up the
filth of a still more beastly excess...”
and anyone who denies this is simply said not being honest, sad to
say!

Furthermore,
Pope Pius XI clearly proclaims the Magisterium’s definitive
teaching in his encyclical Casti Connubii, which is also found
in Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Natural Law, that each
and every marital sexual act must include the procreative function as
well as that “the intrinsic nature of the act” must be
“preserved” in order for the spouses to even be able to
consider the secondary ends of marriage. This teaching necessarily
prohibits the married couple from engaging in any kind of unnatural,
non-procreative or unnecessary sexual act (with or without climax),
because all such acts lack the procreative function. Pope Pius XI
teaches that spouses are not forbidden to consider the secondary ends
of marriage “SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE
PRIMARY END [that is, Procreation of children]
and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Pope
Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in
matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are
also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual
love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are
not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO
THE PRIMARY END [that is, Procreation of children]
and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Pope
Pius XI directly teaches that
the married are
not even allowed to “consider” the secondary ends of
marriage unless they are subordinated to the primary purpose of
marriage
(procreation) and unless “the
intrinsic nature of the act is preserved” which
means that all sexual acts must be able to procreate in themselves,
and that no unnatural and non-procreative form of a sexual act (such
as sensual kisses and touches) can ever be performed without sin.

Notice
how clearly Pope Pius XI teaches that married people are
not even allowed to “consider” the secondary ends of
marriage unless they are subordinated to the primary purpose of
marriage
and “the
intrinsic nature of the act is preserved” which
means that one may never perform anything other than the normal,
natural and procreative marital act itself. This, of course, totally
excludes all sensual kisses and touches.
The
secondary ends of marriage “such
as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting
of concupiscence”
can
follow after the
primary end or purpose of begetting children if the spouses choose
this, but the secondary ends or motives are not absolutely needed to
lawfully perform the marital act in the same way as the primary
purpose of begetting children, nor is the secondary motive of
quieting concupiscence meritorious even though it is allowed:
“Love
your wives then, but love them chastely. In your intercourse with
them keep yourselves within the bounds necessary for the procreation
of children. And inasmuch as you cannot otherwise have them, descend
to it with regret.”
(St. Augustine, Sermons
on the New Testament,
Sermon 1)

The
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
“Two lessons of instruction are then to be specially impressed
on the mind of the faithful. The
first is that marriage is not to be used from motives of sensuality
or pleasure,
but that its use is to be restrained within those limits, which, as
we have above shown, are prescribed by the Lord. They
should be mindful of the exhortation of the Apostle: “They that
have wives, let them be as though they had them not,”
(1 Cor. 7:29)
and that St. Jerome says: “The
love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of
judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of
desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more
shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.””

Good
and virtuous spouses always remember that God is present with them,
and that is also why they do not stoop to the evil and unnatural
sexual sins that so plague humanity today. “The activities of
marriage itself, if they are not modest and do not take place under
the eyes of God as it were, so that the only intention is children,
are filth and lust.” (St. Jerome, Commentary
on the Epistle to the Galatians,
Book III, Chapter 5:21)

In
truth, “filth” is the most suitable word that sums up the
worth of every marital act that lacks a procreative purpose. Thus,
“…when
it [the sexual act] is from lust or for the sake of pleasure, then
the coition is a mortal sin and the man sins mortally. … And
these dicta assume that the man and his wife have sex according to
the order of nature, for anyone who goes against nature always sins
mortally and more seriously with his wife than with anyone else and
should be punished more seriously…
Note
the difference between the two cases of husband-wife sex, for
incontinence and for pleasure and lust… In
the second case, he seeks to procure pleasure with hands or thought
or passionate uses and incentives [such as sensual kisses] so he can
do more than just have sex with his wife…
[thus sinning mortally] because he acts as an adulterer when he burns
like an adulterer even with his own wife.” (Gratian, On
Marriage, Dictum
Post C. 32. 2. 2)

Footnote
359 to The Shepherd of Hermas: “‘To the pure, all
things are pure;’ but they who presume on this great truth to
indulge in kissings and like familiarities are tempting a dangerous
downfall.”

St.
Cyprian of Carthage, To
Pomponius
(c. A.D. 249): “Assuredly the mere lying together, the mere
embracing, the very talking together, and the act of kissing, and the
disgraceful and foul slumber of two persons lying together, how much
of dishonour and crime does it confess!” (The
Epistles of Cyprian,
Epistle LXI)

St.
Clement of Alexandria, The
Stromata,
Book II, Chapter XX (c. 199 A.D.): “Socrates accordingly bids
‘people guard against enticements to eat when they are not
hungry, and to drink when not thirsty, and the glances and kisses of
the fair, as fitted to inject a deadlier poison than that of
scorpions and spiders.’” (Ante-Nicene
Fathers,
Vol 2, p. 613)

Indeed,
the argument that sensual kisses and touches are sinful for both the
married and unmarried alike because they are intoxicating like a drug
is just one of the three main arguments against it, the other two
being that they are shameful and
non-procreative. If one wants to read more about these two arguments
and why they refute all those who perversely claim that one may
perform kisses and touches for sensual reasons (or any other
unnecessary or non-procreative sexual act), one can read more about
them in the beginning of Part 2 of this Book, which is named “Sexual
Pleasure, Lust, And The Various Sexual Acts In Marriage”.

Lustful
kisses and touches between spouses are definitely mortal sins

Master
Jean Charlier de Gerson (13 December 1363 – 12 July 1429),
French scholar, educator, reformer, and poet, Chancellor of the
University of Paris, a guiding light of the conciliar movement and
one of the most prominent theologians at the Council of Constance,
who “was the most popular and influential theologian of his
generation”, had the following interesting things to say
about lustful kisses and touches in marriage between two married
spouses, contraception and about sensually arousing oneself:

Jean
Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “Several doctors [of
Divinity] maintain that willingly fostering wicked carnal thoughts in
order to enjoy oneself is a deadly sin, even without doing the deed.
Be sure, however, that kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused
by such wicked and lustful thoughts, without anything more, is an
even greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do
not respect the honesty which is usually kept in public.

“…
You have
committed the sin of lust: If you have fondled and stroked
yourself on your shameful member until you obtain the dirty carnal
pleasure. If you initiated such sins with others, by words, kisses,
fondling, or other signs, or immodest paintings. … If you
committed this sin differently from Nature ordered, or against the
honesty that belongs to marriage. … If you wanted to be
desired and lusted after for your beauty, your behavior, your
clothes, makeup, dancing or dissolute gazes.

“…
What a young boy
should tell in confession: I sometimes stroked myself or others,
urged by disorderly pleasure; I fondled myself, in my bed and
elsewhere, something I would not have dared to do if people had
been there. Sometimes the priest cannot absolve such fondling. If
they are not confessed and the details given, whatever the shame, one
cannot be absolved, and the confession is worthless: one is destined
to be damned for ever in Hell. The action and the way it has been
done must be told.

“…
Is it a sin to
kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses who maintain
the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do them
openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly [and
lustfully] that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable deadly
sin. If kisses are made between strangers and
publicly, as a sign of peace, by friendship or kinship, without
wicked thought, there is no sin. They could be dangerous between
clerics, or people of the same sex or lineage, or in a secret place,
and in a prolonged way.

“…
Is it a mortal
sin to eat and drink in order to carnally arouse oneself? Yes, if
it is out of wedlock, and even with one’s spouse, if it is to
enjoy a pleasure which is not required in marriage.

“…
The fifth
commandment is: thou shall not kill.
… They commit this sin who succeed, in whatever way, in
preventing the fruit which should come from carnal intercourse
between man and woman [such as by NFP, contraception or abortion]. …
It is forbidden for two people, married or not,
to do any kind of lustful fondling without respecting the way and the
vessel Nature requires for conceiving children [that is, one
cannot perform “extra” sexual acts not able to procreate
in themselves or that are not intended for procreation]. It is worse
when it is outside of the natural way [unnatural sexual acts], either
if it is out of wedlock or even worse, within it [that is, all
unnecessary and non-procreative sexual acts within marriage are
considered as worse sins than when they are committed outside of
marriage].

“Is
it permitted for spouses to prevent the conception of a child?
No: I often say that it is a sin worse than murder [hence that
contraception or NFP is equivalent to murder]. It is a sin which
deserves the fires of Hell. Briefly, any way of preventing conception
during intercourse is dishonest and reprehensible.”

Here
we see the very obvious truth of the Natural Law that spouses are
committing “an abominable deadly sin”when they kiss each other for sensual or venereal pleasure. “Is
it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses between spouses who
maintain the same modesty as the kiss of peace at church, or who do
them openly, are without sin. If they do them so immodestly
[and lustfully] that I cannot be more precise, it is an abominable
deadly sin.”
Thus, it is clear that anyone who either performs acts of kissing or
touching for venereal pleasure or who thinks that these acts are
moral acts are sinning against nature, which means that they are in a
state of damnation, since acts or heresies against nature can never
be excused since no one can be a “material heretic” or in
“ignorance” in regards to such things.

Lustful
kisses and touches are mortal sins against the Natural Law

It
is clear from the evidence thus far covered that sensual kisses and
touches are not only mortal sins, but in fact also sins against the
Natural Law. That means that any person who thinks it’s right
to kiss or touch for the sake of carnal pleasure or lust is a heretic
against the Natural Law, and as such, are therefore outside the
Church of God and thus excluded from salvation. Everyone without
exception who have kissed or touched someone or something for the
sake of sensual pleasure proved by their deed that their primary or
secondary purpose for doing this inherently evil, selfish and
shameful deed was not the lawful motive to procreate or quench
concupiscence, but rather the sinful and unlawful gratification and
excitation of their shameful lust like brute beasts without any
reason. No, it would be an insult to beasts to call these vile
spouses beasts! It would be more accurate not to call them beasts,
but demons, since beasts have no reason, and thus are blameless. In
truth, such husbands and wives are lower in their actions than the
beasts of the Earth! “Bodies corrupted by lust are the
dwelling places of devils.” (St. Hilary of Poitiers, On
the Gospel, Matt. 11:2-10)

Everyone
without exception that kisses and touches “for the sake of the
carnal and sensible delight which arises” from these acts, are
committing a mortal sin against the Natural Law. How so, you might
ask? Well, I answer that it is easy to prove.

First
of all, acts of lust that are performed for the sake of pleasure and
sensual kisses are completely selfish, shameful, intoxicating and
unnecessary for conception to occur. Only a blind person could fail
to see the fact that “the
sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance
with right reason...”
and that “lust
there signifies any kind of excess”
(St. Thomas Aquinas) and this obvious fact totally excludes all kinds
of sensual kisses and touches.

Second,
consider how people will not kiss or touch their spouse in a sexual
way or for carnal pleasure in front of other people (unless they are
totally degenerated). And consider that they would be very ashamed if
their parent, child or friend walked in on them when they were
committing this shameful, selfish and unnecessary act with their
spouse. It is thus clear that their conscience tells them that it is
an inherently evil, shameful and unnecessary act; and yet, though
they know this truth in their conscience, they nevertheless refuse to
feel this very same shame when they are committing this act of lust
in the presence of God and Mary and all the Saints and Angels in
Heaven.

Sad
to say, a little known truth known today taught by the Saints is also
that pleasures of various kinds and sexual lusts and acts blinds
people from perceiving spiritual truths and facts (see The
evil of lust makes man blind to spiritual things) and that is why
people can sin so boldly against their natural conscience and God
since they have allowed their conscience to be smothered by their
evil lusts.

Some
people may object that there are many other events that are shameful
and that are not yet inherently sinful such as soiling one’s
pants or being forced to show oneself naked to other people against
one’s own will. This objection, however, fails to notice the
obvious difference between 1) people committing acts of lust with a
desire or longing; and 2) events which are shameful but who are not
desired or longed for by a person in a sensual way.

Acts
of lust are acts performed for the sake of a pleasure and are
performed with the will and purpose of satisfying a sensual desire
while the events or acts of soiling one’s pants or being forced
to show oneself naked to other people is not a desire or lust that is
sought after. Thus, these people do not desire that these events
should happen. If those people who endured the events of soiling
their clothes or naked exhibition against their will would sensually
desire or lust for that these shameful events would happen in the
same way that a man or a woman lust for and desire that acts of lust
happen, they would indeed be declared the most disgusting perverts.
Who but a complete and satanic pervert would sensually desire or lust
after soiling their pants or being exhibited naked?

When
Our Lord was going to be crucified, He was forced to be without any
covering for His private parts for a while before someone handed Him
something to cover Himself with. Our Lord was obviously ashamed for
having to appear naked before a lot of people, but He didn’t
desire that this should happen, and most importantly, He didn’t
lust at it when it happened! and so, there was no fault in Him. If,
however, a person should lust or desire (in a sensual way) that he or
she should appear naked before other people (such as nude models), he
or she would commit a mortal sin and be a pervert.

Consequently,
it is not a mere shameful act that is sinful, but the shameful act
that is performed with the intention of pleasing oneself
sensually—that is sinful. Kissing for the sake of a venereal
pleasure is a completely selfish act that only serves to increase
lust, and as such, is against the natural law just like gluttony is
against the natural law. It is indeed very similar to the sin of
gluttony. One could say that those who commit this sin are gluttonous
in the marital act. It is completely self evident that no one ever
needed to break God’s law by kissing or touching their spouse
in a sexual way in order to perform the marital act. No one ever
needed to kiss or touch in a sensual way in order to be able to make
a child. This is just a selfish, shameful and condemned excuse used
by sexually perverted, morally depraved people in order to try to
enhance or inflame their sexual pleasure. Kisses and touches must not
and cannot be used to satisfy sensual pleasure as is totally clear
from the above Church condemnation and from the words of Jean Gerson
(and as we will see, St. Thomas Aquinas).

Kisses,
touches, hugs, caresses etc. can of course be sinful or non-sinful
depending on why they are performed. All kisses, touches, hugs, and
caresses performed for the sake of lust or sensual pleasure is
mortally sinful and must always be avoided at all cost by all people
at all times. Natural touches, kisses, hugs, caresses, embraces and
the like (such as those performed by family members and by lovers in
public) are not sinful provided they are not performed for the sake
of sensual or lustful reasons. Spouses must be aware though, for even
though it is not sinful to embrace one another out of affection,
excess or unreasonability in embracing happens easily during the heat
of concupiscence, and this is certainly sinful. Also, if spouses hug
or kiss each other out of affection and love and they perceive that
their lust is aroused by this act, they must immediately cease with
this deed that is arousing their lust, or be guilty of the mortal sin
of unlawfully inflaming their lust.

St.
Finnian of Clonard, The
Penitential of Finnian,
#46: “We
advise and exhort that there be continence in marriage, since
marriage without continence is not lawful, but sin, and [marriage] is
permitted by the authority of God not for lust but for the sake of
children...”

It
is totally clear that the reason for why so many people of our times
consider kisses and touches for venereal or sensual pleasure to be a
moral act in marriage and between married spouses is that the satanic
media from the beginning of the 20th century have bombarded them with
films, series and music that promotes this unnatural and
non-procreative perversity that were totally rejected by the
Christian world if we just moved back in time a little. Indeed, just
like all the other moral laws that have been flouted through the
media in our time, such as the laws of modesty and marriage, sensual
kisses have been promoted increasingly much in the media through
films, music and series, and those who watch media with such kinds of
perversity, rightly and justly fall into error concerning the Natural
Law about how all non-procreative sexual acts are unlawful and
unnatural, since they chose to put themselves into a proximate or
near occasion of sinning, which the Church condemns.

A
good example of how people who get married today sin by kissing each
other is the kiss that the husband and wife perform after the wedding
ceremony. It is obvious that those who kiss each other in a
lascivious and shameful manner are following what they have learned
from the world and the media by watching perverted and evil shows,
series and films, and that as a consequence of watching this filth,
their shame and conscience have been completely smothered due to
their lust and sensuality. Only people who have had their conscience
seared with a hot iron could ever dare to kiss another human being in
a shameful and lascivious manner, or for the sake of venereal
pleasure, and this is much more true in the case of those who do this
evil deed in public and in front of other people, and by this act,
maliciously tempt other people to sins of impurity and sensual
thoughts and desires. People who get married as well as anyone else
who want to show affection towards someone close to them must instead
learn to kiss them in a pure way as brothers and sisters kiss each
other, or as modest married people in public kiss each other, for
this is the only kind of kiss that God allows.

Tertullian,
Against Marcion,
Book I, Chapter 29, A.D 207: “For He [God] bestowed His
blessing on matrimony also, as on an honorable estate, for the
increase of the human race; as He did indeed on the whole of His
creation, for wholesome and good uses. Meats and drinks are not on
this account to be condemned, because, when served up with too
exquisite a daintiness, they conduce to gluttony; nor is raiment to
be blamed, because, when too costly adorned, it becomes inflated with
vanity and pride. So, on the same principle, the estate of matrimony
is not to be refused, because, when enjoyed without moderation, it is
fanned into a voluptuous flame. There is a great difference between a
cause and a fault, between a state and its excess. Consequently it is
not an institution of this nature that is to be blamed, but the
extravagant use of it; according to the judgment of its founder
Himself, who not only said, "Be fruitful, and multiply,"
[Genesis 1:28] but also, "You shall not commit adultery,"
and, "You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife;" and
who threatened with death the unchaste, sacrilegious, and monstrous
abomination both of adultery and unnatural sin with man and beast.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas condemns lustful kisses and touches for married and
unmarried people alike as mortal sins

Now
we shall look at what St. Thomas Aquinas has to say about kisses and
touches.

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second
Part, Q. 154, Art. 4:

“Whether
there can be mortal sin in touches and kisses?

“Objection
1: It would seem that there is no mortal sin in touches and
kisses. For the Apostle says (Eph. 5:3): "Fornication
and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named
among you, as becometh saints," then he adds: "Or
obscenity" (which a gloss refers to "kissing and
fondling"), "or foolish talking" (as "soft
speeches"), "or scurrility" (which "fools call
geniality---i.e. jocularity"), and afterwards he continues (Eph.
5:5): "For
know ye this and understand that no fornicator, or unclean, or
covetous person (which is the serving of idols), hath inheritance in
the kingdom of Christ and of God," thus making no further
mention of obscenity, as neither of foolish talking or scurrility.
Therefore these are not mortal sins.”

“[St.
Thomas Aquinas’] Reply to Objection 1:
The Apostle makes no further mention of these three because they
[kisses and touches] are not sinful except as directed to those that
he had mentioned before [i.e. fornicators, unclean and covetous
people].”

As
we have seen, married people can of course also be unclean
and covetous
according
to St. Thomas’ teaching concerning the sexual acts of married
people “since
the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the
good of marriage if
he use her indecently,
although
he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer;
and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another
woman.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica,
Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 8) Notice in the quote
above that St. Thomas held sexual sins within marriage to be worse
than adultery, because the act occurs within marriage. Therefore,
unnatural and non-procreative sexual acts such as sensual kisses and
touches do not become permissible when these take place within
marriage. Instead, unnatural
sexual acts are made even
more sinful
when they take place within marriage because they offend not only
against nature and a Holy Sacrament, but also against God and the Law
written in our hearts.
Thus, it is clear that this quotation about sensual kisses and
touches concerns both the married and the unmarried since it is
obvious that married people also can be unclean
and covetous
in their actions.

The
phrase ‘if
he use her indecently’
used by St. Thomas refers to unnatural and non-procreative sexual
acts—such as sensual kisses and touches within marriage. This
is clear because the good of marriage emphasized by St. Thomas is the
procreation of children (Summa
Theologica,
II-II, Q. 154, Art. 2). St. Thomas could not be referring to natural
marital relations when he says ‘if
he use her indecently’
because even natural marital relations done with some disorder of
desire still retains the procreative function. But unnatural or
non-procreative sexual acts (such as sensual kisses and touches) lack
this meaning, and so are contrary to the good of marriage. The
use of unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts within marriage are
therefore worse
than adultery, according to St. Thomas Aquinas!
since such people who commit these acts “may in a sense be
called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a
lover of another woman.” This of course totally destroys the
thesis of those who claim that the Church allows non-procreative
sexual acts in marriage.

Second
Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 4 [continued]:

“Objection
2: Further, fornication
is stated to be a mortal sin as being
prejudicial to the good of the future child’s begetting and
upbringing. But these are not affected by kisses and touches or
blandishments. Therefore there is no mortal sin in these.”

“[St.
Thomas Aquinas’] Reply to Objection 2:
Although kisses and touches do not by their very nature hinder the
good of the human offspring, they proceed from lust,
which is the source of this hindrance [of why kisses and touches are
made sinful]: and on this account [in so far as they are lustful]
they are mortally sinful.”

Notice
that St. Thomas here said that kisses and touches was mortal sins in
the general sense if “they proceed from lust”, and that
he did not say that “it depends on whether they occur in
the context of marriage/fornication or not” or that “this
is what decides or determines whether it becomes sinful.” St.
Thomas clearly says that the source of the hindrance
of why sensual kisses and touches are sinful is because they
proceed from lust, and that these acts are
sinful not because they “hinder the good of the human
offspring” but because “they proceed from
lust”.
Thus, it is totally clear from this definition of St. Thomas that he
views the lustful intention
when performing these acts as the source
of the mortal sin itself, and not simply because they occur in
context of marriage or not (as we shall also see further down).

Again,
notice above that St. Thomas says that Kisses and Touches does not
“by their very nature hinder
the good of the human offspring”
and that he said if “they proceed from lust... they are
mortally sinful” since this is the source
of this hindrance of why they have become unlawful to do; and
that he said this in reply to the objection which stated that kisses
and touches were not
mortal sins since they do not
hinder the good of the human offspring as fornication is said to do.
What does St. Thomas reply show? It
shows that it is
the lust that determines if the act is to be regarded as a sin,
and not whether it is a hindrance for the good of the future
offspring. We know that this is the case, since St. Thomas himself
said that kisses and touches do not
hinder the good of the future offspring,
since kisses and touches
can be made without lustful intention, or be made without an
intention to procreate, or even be made in context of wanting to
procreate in marriage,
(hence that they do not necessarily hinder the good of the future
offspring), but if they
proceed by lust, they are made unlawful and sinful anyway
(regardless of the cause).

“[St.
Thomas Aquinas’] Reply
to Objection 2: Although kisses and
touches do not by their very nature hinder the good of the human
offspring, they
[kisses and touches] proceed from lust,
which is the source of this hindrance [of why kisses and touches are
made sinful]: and on this account [in so
far as they are lustful] they are mortally
sinful.”

That
is why St. Thomas even rejects as lascivious and unlawful “acts
circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth”: “We may also reply
that "lasciviousness" relates to certain acts
circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth.” (Summa
Theologica,
II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1)

In
another part of his Summa,
St. Thomas deals with the question of “Whether
the unnatural vice is a species of lust?” and
his answer affirms, once again, that all non-procreative sexual acts
are unnatural and sinful lust: “Objection 3:
Further, lust regards acts directed to human generation, as stated
above (Q[153], A[2]): Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts
from which generation cannot follow. Therefore the unnatural vice
is not a species of lust. [St. Thomas' Reply:] On the contrary,
It is reckoned together with the other species of lust (2 Corinthians
12:21) where we read: "And have not done penance for the
uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness," where a gloss
says: "Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural
lust." [St. Thomas’] Reply to Objection 3:
The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures.
It is possible to have this [pleasure] without those acts from which
human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the
unnatural vice.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, Art.
11) And so it is clear that St. Thomas taught that all
non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts (such as sensual kisses
and touches) are sinful and against nature (unnatural). “Therefore,
since in matrimony man receives by Divine institution the faculty to
use his wife for
the begetting of children,
he
also receives the grace
without which he cannot becomingly
do so.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica,
Suppl., Q. 42, Art. 3) Thus, according to St. Thomas, all spouses are
given the grace by God to use his spouse in an appropriate or
suitable way (that is, for the procreation of children), which means
that any man who acts contrary to this rejects God’s grace
and damns himself, since he does not use his wife “becomingly”.
“We may also reply that "lasciviousness" relates
to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance
kisses, touches, and so forth.” (Summa
Theologica,
II-II, Q. 154, Art. 1)

In
addition, St. Thomas also affirms (as St. Augustine) that even
married spouses sin in their normal, natural and procreative sexual
acts if they do not excuse them; and this proves that he utterly
rejects all non-procreative sexual acts as unlawful.

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl., Q. 49, Art. 5:
“Whether the marriage act can be excused without the marriage
goods? On the contrary, If the cause be removed the effect is
removed. Now the marriage goods are the cause of rectitude in the
marriage act. Therefore the marriage act cannot be excused without
them. Further, the aforesaid act does not differ from the act of
fornication except in the aforesaid goods. But the act of fornication
is always evil. Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil
unless it be excused by the aforesaid goods. … Consequently
there are only two ways in which married persons can come together
without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in
order to pay the debt. Otherwise it is always at least a venial sin.”

Since
St. Thomas condemns as sinful even the normal, natural and
procreative sexual act when it is not excused – even
though this act is still procreative in itself, –
how much more must
he not utterly reject
the notion that
non-procreative sexual acts, such as sensual kisses and touches, are
allowed for spouses to perform?
To deny this obvious truth is simply said to be dishonest! However,
while St. Thomas here erroneously taught that the payment of the
marital debt is a sufficient motive for excusing the marital sexual
act from sin, this teaching by him is nevertheless contradicted by
Pope Pius XI’s authoritative encyclical Casti
Connubii,
which, as we have already shown, teaches
that the marital debt is a secondary end or purpose after the primary
motive of procreation of children
(Casti
Connubii,
# 59); still, the fact that this great Saint and Doctor of the Church
teaches that the procreative sexual act itself is sinful unless it is
excused, totally proves that St. Thomas teaches that all
non-procreative sexual acts are unlawful and sinful.

Indeed,
it is so obvious that St. Thomas really
teaches that
even spouses
can sin in their lustful touches and kisses when they do them before,
during or after the marital sexual act that
he actually teaches that spouses can
even commit mortal sin from simply performing an unsuitable or
indecent sexual position while performing the marital, procreative
sexual act!

St.
Thomas Aquinas, In
Libros Sententiarum,
Chapter IV, Section 31, 2, 3: “Marital relations are contrary
to nature when either the right receptacle or the proper
position
required by nature is avoided.
In the first case it is always a mortal sin because no offspring can
result, so that the purpose of nature is completely frustrated. But
in the second case [of inappropriate sexual positions that are
procreative] it is not always a mortal sin, as some say, though
it can be the sign
of a passion which is mortal;
at times the latter can occur without sin, as when one’s bodily
condition does not permit any other method. In
general, this practice is more serious the more it departs from the
natural way.”

The
above of course refutes the idea that St. Thomas does not teach that
spouses can sin in their sexual acts by their unnecessary, lustful,
or passionate acts or deeds—such as lustful kisses and
touches—since St. Thomas even teaches that married spouses can
commit the mortal sin of “passion” by merely performing
another sexual position beside from the missionary position, even
though this act is procreative in itself.

Continuing
on with the topic of “Whether there can be mortal sin
in touches and kisses?”—St.
Thomas Aquinas’
general refutation of, and reply to all the objections against the
Church’s
moral teaching that there can be mortal sins in sensual kisses and
touches also for married people, utterly destroys the notion that one
may perform these acts.

Second
Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 4 [continued]:

“On
the contrary, A lustful look is less than a touch, a caress or a
kiss. But according to Mat. 5:28, "Whosoever shall look on a
woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in
his heart." MUCH MORE
THEREFORE ARE
LUSTFUL KISSES AND OTHER LIKE THINGS MORTAL
SINS.”

This
means that St. Thomas views lustful kisses “and other like
things” as worse sins than adultery or
fornication! This is probably due to the fact that St. Thomas views
sexual sins that cannot serve for procreation as worse sins
than those that can. Notice also that St. Thomas says that “A
lustful look is less than a touch, a caress or a kiss” in order
to show us that the main sin is in the intention when we lust against
our reason and consent to committing unnecessary, intoxicating and
shameful acts; but that external acts, such as “a touch, a
caress or a kiss” aggravate the guilt of the act, and that
these are therefore worse mortal sins than just the lustful look and
thought. Thus, if even St. Thomas condemns as mortally sinful a
lustful look, in addition to teaching that married people’s
sexual sins are worse than adultery, “MUCH MORE
THEREFORE ARE
LUSTFUL KISSES AND OTHER LIKE THINGS MORTAL
SINS.”

In
fact, St. Thomas abhors all non-procreative sexual acts with such a
detestation and hatred that he even views the vices of fornication,
rape or incest as a lesser
sexual crime than
the vice of masturbation. However, one must not think that St. Thomas
teaches that fornication, rape or incest are generally lesser sins
than masturbation or other non-procreative sexual acts. Fornication,
rape and incest are greater
crimes in the sense of justice, but masturbation is a greater
violation of the Natural Law with respect to the sexual act since it
more grievously “transgresses that which has been determined by
nature [for the procreation of children]”.
It is therefore considered, according to St. Thomas, as a greater
crime in the sense of sins against human sexuality.

“In
every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which
the rest depend. Now the principles of reason are those things that
are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as
determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as
it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in
practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most
grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the
knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of
action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as
determined by nature. Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man
transgresses that which has been determined by nature [for the
procreation of children] with regard to the use of venereal actions,
it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it
comes incest, which, as stated above (Article 9), is contrary to
the natural respect which we owe persons related to us. With
regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely
of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition,
however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason
to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future
offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides.
Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to
another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then,
it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is
subject to another’s authority as regards the act of
generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore
adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are
aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver
than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery. And all these are
aggravated by coming under the head of sacrilege, as stated above
(10, ad 2). … Reply to Objection 4. Gravity of a sin
depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the
right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place
belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere
omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the
sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed.
Hence a gloss on Genesis 37:2, "He accused his brethren of a
most wicked crime," says that "they copulated with cattle."
After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is
not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right
manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the
"vas" [orifice] than if it affects the manner of copulation
in respect of other circumstances.”

The
first objection of the article argues that sins against nature are
not the worst, because they are not the most contrary to
charity: “The more a sin is contrary to charity the graver it
is. Now adultery, seduction and rape, which are injurious to our
neighbor, seem to be more contrary to the love of our neighbor, than
unnatural sins, by which no other person is injured. Therefore sin
against nature is not the greatest among the species of lust.”
St. Thomas replies to this objection: “As the order of right
reason is from man, so the order of nature is from God himself. And
therefore in sins against nature, in which the very order of nature
is violated, injury is done to God himself, the one who ordains
nature.” In reply to the second objection, St. Thomas says:
“Vices against nature are
also against God, as stated above (ad 1), and are so much more
grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on
human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently
established order.”

Aquinas
is focusing on the sins precisely as a violation of the right use of
sexuality, and abstracting from other aspects of them. As justice is
a greater virtue than chastity, so injustice is a greater evil than
unchastity, and thus all things considered, Aquinas would consider
rape a greater evil than masturbation or contraception. This formal
way of speaking is recognized by some more considerate authors:

“The
teaching of medieval theologians that such sexual sins as
masturbation, sodomy, and contraception are more perverse, as sexual
sins, than fornication or adultery or even rape (the former were said
to be contra naturam whereas the latter were said to be
praeter naturam), angers many people today. But this teaching
must be understood properly. The medieval theologians are claiming
that certain kinds of sexual sins more seriously offend the virtue of
chastity than do others. They are not saying that these sins are for
this reason less grave as sins than adultery or rape, for instance.
After all, adultery and rape are very serious violations of the
virtue of justice as well as being violations of the virtue of
chastity. Thus, as a sin, rape is far more serious than masturbation
or homosexual sodomy because it not only offends chastity but also
gravely violates justice.” (Ronald David Lawler, Joseph M.
Boyle, William E. May, Catholic sexual ethics: a summary,
explanation & defense)

St.
Thomas Aquinas continues to answer the question of “Whether
there can be mortal sin in touches and kisses”
between married and unmarried people:

“Further,
Cyprian says (Ad Pompon, de Virgin., Ep. lxii), "By their very
intercourse, their blandishments, their converse, their embraces,
those who are associated in a sleep that knows neither honor
nor shame, acknowledge their disgrace and crime."
Therefore by doing these things a man is guilty of a crime, that
is, of mortal sin.”

“I
answer that, A thing is said to be a mortal works/sin in two
ways. First, by reason of its species, and in this way a kiss,
caress, or touch does not, of its very nature, imply a mortal sin,
for it is possible to do such things without lustful
pleasure, either as being the custom of one’s country, or
on account of some obligation or reasonable cause. Secondly, a thing
is said to be a mortal sin by reason of its cause: thus he who gives
an alms, in order to lead someone into heresy, sins mortally on
account of his corrupt intention. Now it has been stated above [I-II,
Q. 74, A. 8], that it is a mortal sin not only to consent to the act,
but also to the delectation [or pleasure] of a mortal sin. Wherefore
since fornication is a mortal sin, and much more
so the other kinds of lust[1]it follows that
in such like sins [that is, sins of lust] not only consent to the act
but also consent to the pleasure is a mortal sin. Consequently,
when these kisses and caresses are done for this pleasure [lust] it
follows that they are mortal sins, and only in this way
are they said to be lustful. Therefore in so far as they
are lustful, they are mortal sins.”

[1].
“and much more
so the other kinds of lust…”
i.e., lust committed both inside and outside of marriage. And by the
way, St. Thomas also views sexual sins committed within
a marriage as worse
sins than those
committed outside of marriage, as we have seen and shall see further
on.

And
for those objecting that St. Thomas was referring only to the
unmarried people here since he mentioned the word “fornication”
in some instances (but not others), we will provide the following
quote by him refuting this argument:

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica,
Supplement, Q. 64. Art. 1, Reply to Objection 3: “If the
husband
[refuses to pay the marital debt without a just cause] . . . then he
sins, and his wife’s
sin, should she
fall into FORNICATION
[adultery, impure thoughts or masturbation] on this account, is
somewhat imputable to him. Hence he should endeavor to do his best
that his wife may remain continent.”

Hence,
it is totally clear from above that when St. Thomas was mentioning
the word “fornication,” “lascivious,”
“unclean,”
or “covetous” person, he was using
it to refer to the sins of the unmarried and married people alike.
And we know that this is the case, for when St. Thomas condemned
lustful kisses and touches above as mortal sins – in the Second
Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1 & 4 – we know that
he was referring to both, since, as he said,
allfornicators,
all
unclean people, all
covetous and all
lascivious people was included in this category of mortal sinners
(see objection 1 and reply to objection 1 quoted above).

St.
Thomas Aquinas explains himself further in another part of his Summa,
saying that acts “such as impure looks,
kisses, and touches” regards the virtue of purity, while the
virtue of “chastity regards rather sexual union.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second
Part, Q. 151, Art. 4: “Consequently purity regards
venereal matters properly, and especially the signs
thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches.
And since the latter are more wont to be observed, purity regards
rather these external signs [i.e., looks, kisses, and touches],
while chastity regards rather sexual union.”

Here
we have another great evidence that kisses and touches for venereal
pleasure was known very clearly to be sinful, shameful and contrary
to purity even by the lay people of St. Thomas’ time. St.
Thomas tells us that the virtue of “purity regards venereal
matters properly, and
especially the signs thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and
touches.”
But he adds that the virtue of purity were
“more wont to be observed”
by the people of his own time in regards to these “impure”
acts of “impure looks, kisses, and touches,” thus
confirming the fact that unnecessary sexual acts, such as kisses and
touches for sensual pleasure, is a completely foreign concept to the
Church and Her Saints that have been foisted on the modern man and
woman through the diabolical media to be a cause of, or even to be
“love”, “affection”, or an integral part of
the marital act, when it in fact is nothing but filthy lust! “The
activities of marriage itself, if they are not modest and do not take
place under the eyes of God as it were, so that the only intention is
children, are filth and lust.” (St. Jerome,
Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, Book III, Chapter
5:21) Thus,
according to St. Thomas, in contrast to the lustful spouses of our
own times, the people of the former times were lucky enough to have
this good “shamefacedness” that kept them from performing
unnecessary and unlawful sexual acts “such
as impure looks, kisses, and touches.”

In
addition, it is very important and of worth noting that St. Thomas,
in the context of this quotation, referred to the marital sexual act,
by using the words “the
conjugal act”
as well as “of
marriage,”
which directly refutes one of the principle
objections of the heretical objectors to the condemnation of sensual
kisses and touches by the Church and Her Saints (that is, that the
quotes doesn’t apply to marriage or the marital act):

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second
Part, Q. 151, Art. 4: “I answer that, As stated above
(Objection 2), "pudicitia" [purity] takes its name from
"pudor," which signifies shame. Hence purity must needs be
properly about the things of which man is most ashamed. Now men are
most ashamed of venereal acts, as Augustine remarks (De Civ. Dei xiv,
18), so much so that even the conjugal act,
which is adorned by the honesty [Cf. 145] of marriage,
is not devoid of shame: and this because the movement of the organs
of generation is not subject to the command of reason, as are the
movements of the other external members. Now man is ashamed not
only of this sexual union but also of all the signs thereof, as the
Philosopher observes (Rhet. Ii, 6). Consequently purity regards
venereal matters properly, and especially the signs
thereof, such as impure looks, kisses, and touches.
And since the latter are more wont to be observed, purity regards
rather these external signs [i.e., looks, kisses, and touches],
while chastity regards rather sexual union.”

In
another part of his Summa, St. Thomas speaks about the
“"shamefacedness," whereby one recoils
from the disgrace that is contrary to temperance”
– which sadly is lacking in deviant lustful spouses – and
he shows that “vices of intemperance” that arouse
the sexual desire, such as “kissing, touching, or fondling,”
are contrary to the virtue of “purity.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second
Part, Q. 143, Art. 1: “…
there are two integral parts of temperance, "shamefacedness,"
whereby one recoils from the disgrace that is contrary to temperance,
and "honesty," whereby one loves the beauty of temperance.
For, as stated above (Q[141], A[2], ad 3), temperance more than any
other virtue lays claim to a certain comeliness, and
the vices
of intemperance
excel others in disgrace.
The subjective parts of a virtue are its species: and the
species of a virtue have to be differentiated according to the
difference of matter or object. Now temperance is about pleasures of
touch, which are of two kinds. For some are directed to nourishment:
and in these as regards meat, there is "abstinence,"
[from gluttony] and as regards drink properly there is "sobriety."
[from drunkenness] Other pleasures are directed to the power of
procreation, [that is, they arouse the sexual desire] and in these as
regards the principal pleasure of the act itself of procreation,
there is "chastity," [from acts of adultery,
fornication or other unlawful sexual acts] and as to the
pleasures incidental to the act, resulting, for instance, from
kissing, touching, or fondling, we have "purity [from all such
non-procreative sexual acts]."”

Here
St. Thomas Aquinas is discussing temperance as a virtue as opposed
to the “vices of intemperance”, and he says that the
contrary species of the matter or object of “kissing,
touching, or fondling,” is purity. This means that
“kissing, touching, or fondling” can be a means of
impurity, and a vice of
intemperance, and it shows us that St. Thomas, in this
context (as in the other quoted above), referred to it as
impurity.

Furthermore,
we here see the fact we have already spoken about that spouses
who have lost their temperance of “shamefacedness”
that St. Thomas speaks about are able to perform such shameful
acts as kisses and touches for venereal pleasure. Sad to say,
but it is exactly their lack of shame and “shamefacedness”
and their forgetfulness of God’s presence, and that God’s
eyes sees them and all their unnecessary and lascivious acts, kisses
and touches that are performed in connection to the marital act, or
as an individual act separated from it—that are the reason for
why they dare to perform these unlawful and shameful acts. “Damascene
(De Fide Orth. ii, 15) and Gregory of Nyssa [Nemesius, (De Nat. Hom.
xx)] say that "shamefacedness is fear of doing a
disgraceful deed or of a disgraceful deed done."”
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the
Second Part, Q. 144, Art. 2) And in Reply to Objection 1 of the same
article, St. Thomas states: “Shamefacedness properly
regards disgrace as due to sin which is a voluntary defect [of the
will]. Hence the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 6) that "a
man is more ashamed of those things of which he is the cause [of
doing]."”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second
Part, Q. 144, Art. 1, Reply to Objection 2: “As stated
above, shamefacedness is fear of baseness and disgrace.
Now it has been stated (142, 4) that the vice of
intemperance is most base and disgraceful. Wherefore
shamefacedness pertains more to temperance than to any other virtue,
by reason of its motive cause, which is a base action though not
according to the species of the passion, namely fear [from being
shamed*]. Nevertheless in so far as the vices opposed to other
virtues are base and disgraceful, shamefacedness may also pertain to
other virtues.”

*
“Now shamefacedness is inconsistent
with perfection, because it is the fear of something base,
namely of that which is disgraceful. …
Therefore shamefacedness, properly speaking, is not a virtue, since
it falls short of the perfection of virtue.” (St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Q.
144, Art. 1)

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second
Part, Q. 144, Art. 4: “I answer that, As stated above (1 and 2)
shamefacedness is fear of some disgrace. Now it may happen in two
ways that an evil is not feared: first, because it is not reckoned an
evil; secondly because one reckons it impossible with regard to
oneself, or as not difficult to avoid. Accordingly shame may be
lacking in a person in two ways. First, because the things that
should make him ashamed are not deemed by him to be disgraceful; and
in this way those who are steeped in sin are without shame, for
instead of disapproving of their sins, they boast of them.
Secondly, because they apprehend disgrace as impossible to
themselves, or as easy to avoid. On this way the old and the virtuous
are not shamefaced. Yet they are so disposed, that if there were
anything disgraceful in them they would be ashamed of it. Wherefore
the Philosopher says (Ethic. iv, 9) that "shame is in the
virtuous hypothetically."”

Though
they are not in themselves mortal sins when they are not
performed for the sake of venereal pleasure, St. Thomas Aquinas
clearly recognizes that kisses and touches come to be treated as such
"ex sua causa," "because of a wicked intention,"
as the Blackfriars edition of the Summa renders it (cf. Summa
Theologica 2a.2ae.154.4; 43: 220-221); kisses that are intended
to arouse, to incite venereal pleasure, are properly called
libidinous and are condemned as mortal sins.

In
fact, the Angelic doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, defines lust in the
following manner:

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica,
Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 153, Art. 3: “I answer that,
The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one to observe
the order of reason
in its regard; wherefore the more
sinful it becomes if
the order of reason be forsaken.
Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is
most necessary for the common good, namely
the preservation of the human race.
Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of
reason in this matter: so
that if anything be done in this connection against
the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin.
Now
lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason
in the matter of venereal acts.
Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin.”

All
of this absolutely proves that all unnecessary sexual acts like
sensual kisses and touches are sinful! for according to St. Thomas,
whenever spouses go beyond “the order and mode of reason in the
matter of venereal acts” during marital relations, they
committed the sin of lust. Notice that St. Thomas says “that if
anything be done in this connection against the
dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin.” He says
that “anything” that is done
“against the dictate of reason’s ordering” is
sinful, and not only some things, (as many heretics of our own
times claim), and that “lust consists essentially in exceeding
the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts”,
that is, exceeding that which “is most necessary for the common
good, namely the preservation of the human race.” Since
the venereal act “is most necessary for the common good, namely
the preservation of the human race” it is a direct sin
against nature to perform unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts.
Thus, according to St. Thomas, since “the use of venereal acts”
are permitted for the purpose of procreation, “there is the
greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter:
so that if anything be done in this connection against
the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin. Now
lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason
in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without
any doubt lust is a sin.” Therefore, it is obvious from
the Natural Law itself that sensual kisses and touches are “exceeding
the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts”
since they are unnecessary and not able to procreate children, which
is the purpose of the marital sexual act, according to the teaching
of the Church.

St.
Thomas continues to expound on this teaching in the following
question:

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica,
Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1: “I answer that
As stated above (Question 153, Article 3), the
sin of lust consists in seeking venereal pleasure not in accordance
with right reason.
… Reply to Objection 6. According to a gloss on this passage
[Galatians 5:19] "lust"
there signifies any kind of excess.”

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologica,
Second Part of the Second Part, Q. 154, Art. 1:
“Reply to Objection 5. As a gloss says on this passage,
"uncleanness" stands for lust against nature…
Reply to Objection 6. We may also reply that "lasciviousness"
relates to certain acts circumstantial to the venereal act, for
instance kisses, touches, and so forth.”

Notice
that St. Thomas even rejects as lascivious and unlawful “acts
circumstantial to the venereal act, for instance kisses,
touches, and so forth” and so, it is clear that St.
Thomas taught that all non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts
are sinful and against nature. And the infallible word of God of
course agrees with this truth of nature, teaching us that: “The
works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness,
immodesty, luxury [lust]... Of the which I foretell
you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such
things shall not obtain the
kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:19, 21)

Commenting
on Ephesians 5:3-5 just mentioned by St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa
Theologica, The
Haydock Bible Commentary
explains the sin of covetousness
and uncleanness:

“Ver.
3.Covetousness.
The Latin word is generally taken for a coveting or immoderate desire
of money and riches. St. Jerome and others observe, that the Greek
word in this and divers other places in the New Testament may signify
ANY
UNSATIABLE DESIRE, OR THE LUSTS OF SENSUAL PLEASURES;
and on this account, St. Jerome thinks that it is here joined with
fornication
and uncleanness
[i.e., sexual sins]. --- Ver.
5.Nor
covetous person, which is a serving of idols.It
is clear enough by the Greek that the covetous
man is called an idolater,
whose idol is mammon; though it may be also said of other sinners,
that the vices they are addicted to are
their idols.
(Witham)”

The
main point we can gather from this explanation of St. Thomas that he
so eloquently gives to us is that kisses and touches for sensual
pleasure are completely unnecessary for procreation of children and
serves nothing but a shameful, selfish, sinful and condemned lust.
They are therefore mortal sins for both the married and unmarried and
are unreasonable and unnatural. “May
marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be
undefiled, for
God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.”
(Hebrews 13:4)

Pope
Alexander VII, Various Errors on Moral Matters #40, September
24, 1665 and March 18, 1666: “It is a probable opinion which
states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake
of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, if
danger of further consent and pollution [or
ejaculation] is excluded.” – Condemned
statement by Pope Alexander VII. (Denz. 1140)

Jean
Gerson, Oeuvres Complétes: “Several doctors [of
Divinity] maintain that willingly fostering wicked carnal thoughts in
order to enjoy oneself is a deadly sin, even without doing the deed.
Be sure, however, that kisses, gazes, and fondling, mainly caused
by such wicked and lustful thoughts, without anything more, is an
even greater sin. … it is even worse if these kisses do
not respect the honesty which is usually kept in public.

“…
Is it a sin to kiss? I answer that kisses
between spouses who maintain the same modesty as the kiss of
peace at church, or who do them openly, are without sin. If they
do them so immodestly [and lustfully] that I cannot be more precise,
it is an abominable deadly sin.”

Athenagoras
the Athenian (c. 175 A.D.): “On behalf of those, then, to whom
we apply the names of brothers and sisters, and other designations of
relationship, we exercise the greatest care that their bodies should
remain undefiled and uncorrupted; for the Logos again says to us, “If
any one kiss a second time because it has given him pleasure, [he
sins];” adding, “Therefore the kiss, or rather the
salutation, should be given with the greatest care, since, if there
be mixed with it the least defilement of thought, it excludes us from
eternal life.”” (A
Plea for the Christians,
Chapter XXXII.--Elevated Morality of the Christians)

St.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 198 A.D.): “Love and the Kiss of
Charity. And if we are called to the kingdom of God, let us walk
worthy of the kingdom, loving God and our neighbour. But love is not
proved by a kiss, but by kindly feeling. But there are those, that do
nothing but make the churches resound with a kiss, not having love
itself within. For this very thing, the shameless use of a kiss,
which ought to be mystic, occasions foul suspicions and evil reports.
The apostle calls the kiss holy. When the kingdom is worthily tested,
we dispense the affection of the soul by a chaste and closed mouth,
by which chiefly gentle manners are expressed. But there is another
unholy kiss, full of poison, counterfeiting sanctity. Do you not know
that spiders, merely by touching the mouth, afflict men with pain?
And often kisses inject the poison of licentiousness. It is then very
manifest to us, that a kiss is not love. For the love meant is the
love of God. "And this is the love of God," says John,
"that we keep His commandments;" not that we stroke each
other on the mouth. "And His commandments are not grievous."
But salutations of beloved ones in the ways, full as they are of
foolish boldness, are characteristic of those who wish to be
conspicuous to those without, and have not the least particle of
grace. For if it is proper mystically "in the closet" to
pray to God, it will follow that we are also to greet mystically our
neighbour, whom we are commanded to love second similarly to God,
within doors, "redeeming the time." "For we are the
salt of the earth." (The Paedagogus or Instructor,
Book III, Chapter XI)

Copyright: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the info.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We depend and survive on your donations! Right now, we have spent our savings on advertisements, websites and webhotels in order to warn people and tell them the truth. We have now been forced to start going on social welfare because of this, so if you like our material and want to help us save souls: please pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet.
If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!